What Reference Checks Should Tell a Client
Reference checking is sometimes treated as the final administrative step before an appointment is confirmed. Conducted properly, it should help the client understand how a candidate has performed in real situations, how others have experienced the person’s leadership and whether the evidence supports the assessment formed during the search.
Its purpose is not simply to confirm employment history or obtain reassuring comments. It is to provide a fuller and more balanced understanding of the person being considered.
Testing the Assessment
By the reference stage, the client and search consultant will already have formed a view of the candidate’s experience, strengths, motivation and suitability for the role.
The reference discussion should test that view. Questions should reflect what emerged during interviews and the situations the candidate is likely to face in the new role.
If the appointment requires the candidate to influence difficult stakeholders, lead significant change or operate within a complex organisation, the reference should explore how the person has handled comparable situations.
Understanding the Context
Reference comments should not be considered without context. A candidate may have performed well under one leader but struggled under another, while results achieved in a highly structured organisation may not translate automatically into a business requiring greater independence.
A former manager, colleague or direct report may also have experienced different aspects of the candidate’s leadership. These perspectives can help the client understand the conditions in which the candidate is most effective and where additional support or clarity may be needed.
Looking for Patterns
One comment should rarely determine the outcome of a reference process. An observation may reflect an isolated situation or a difficult working relationship rather than a consistent characteristic.
The consultant should look for patterns across different conversations. When similar strengths or concerns are raised independently, they deserve closer attention.
Recurring observations about the candidate’s ability to build trust, make difficult decisions or develop people can strengthen confidence in the appointment. Repeated concerns about communication, stakeholder relationships or leadership behaviour should be considered equally carefully.
Asking Questions That Invite Evidence
General questions often produce general answers. Asking whether someone is a good leader may result in a positive response, but it offers limited insight.
More useful questions invite specific examples. How did the candidate respond when facing resistance? What changed under the person’s leadership? These examples help the client understand not only what the candidate achieved, but how the results were accomplished.
The discussion should also create space for hesitation or qualification. Even when the overall reference is positive, a carefully chosen phrase may identify an area requiring further exploration.
Consent, Confidentiality and Professional Care
At Third Eye, structured reference checks are conducted with the candidate’s consent once the preferred candidate has been identified.
The consultant must explain the purpose of the conversation, respect both the candidate and the reference provider, handle the information discreetly and report the findings objectively. Reference checking should not become an informal search for negative information or rely on conversations the candidate has not authorised.
When the Findings Raise Concern
A reference check should not be expected to support an appointment regardless of what it reveals.
If the findings identify a significant concern, the consultant should examine it carefully, seek additional context and determine whether it represents an isolated issue or a recurring pattern. The candidate may also need an opportunity to provide relevant context.
The objective is to ensure that the client understands the evidence before making the final decision.
In one assignment for a senior HR position, the reference findings left me sufficiently concerned that I could not recommend proceeding with the preferred candidate. Although the search had reached its final stage, I advised the client not to make the appointment and to begin the search again.
It was not the easiest recommendation to make, but protecting the client’s interests was more important than completing the assignment. The relationship continued for more than ten years, and the client subsequently introduced Third Eye to other organisations. For me, this was a clear reminder that long term trust is built by giving clients the advice they need, even when it creates more work or delays an appointment.
A valuable reference check does not simply confirm what the client hopes to hear. It strengthens confidence where the evidence supports the appointment and introduces caution where it does not. Both outcomes help the client make a better informed leadership decision.